[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110518083551.GE14805@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 10:35:51 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4 v2] watchdog: disable watchdog when thresh is zero
* Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org> wrote:
> +extern int watchdog_thresh;
> struct ctl_table;
> -extern int proc_dowatchdog_enabled(struct ctl_table *, int ,
> - void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
> +extern int __proc_dowatchdog(struct ctl_table *, int ,
> + void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
> +#define proc_dowatchdog_enabled __proc_dowatchdog
> +#define proc_dowatchdog_thresh __proc_dowatchdog
i like the other aspects of your patch but this one is a no-no, we do not use
1970's tech to obfuscate nice C code! :-)
If the argument list is annoying then introduce a helper structure. But having
it longer is no big issue either. Try to shorten the function names if
possible.
Sidenote, the sysctl code has been misdesigned a bit: it should be possible to
add sysctls in .c files and not centralize it all into kernel/sysctl.c
forcibly: we could should have a central static array by using a .sysctl_data
section or such. Anyone wanna fix/improve that?
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists